2013 Gohap 1109 Liability

1. A;

2. B

C

August 27, 2014

October 15, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs an amount of 5% per annum from December 25, 2012 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The plaintiffs are parents of DE students. The defendant is the father of F, D is not in dispute between the parties, and D can be recognized by taking into comprehensive account the following descriptions: F, G, and H’s house located in Jung-gu Seoul, and the purpose of the entire pleadings: F, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, and E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, and E, E, E, E, E, E, and E, E, and E, E, E, E, E, and E, E, E, E, E, E, and E, E, E, E, E, and E, E, E, E, and E, E.

As the ground of this case, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant did not install a rail for the prevention of fall on the rooftop of his own house. The plaintiffs are liable for general tort by negligence by blocking and blocking the entrance up on the rooftop or neglecting them as they were without any guardian. Even though they do not so, the defendant's son F took fire extinguishing agents using a fire extinguishing machine towards D, and as long as D avoided it and died as above, the defendant was liable for damages under Article 755 of the Civil Act due to negligence which failed to perform the duty to protect and supervise the F, who is under the responsibility to compensate for damages. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages under Article 755 of the Civil Act, since the defendant is liable to compensate each of the plaintiffs for damages. The defendant is liable to pay damages to each of the plaintiffs as damages.

As seen earlier, the facts that D died after he fell on the Defendant’s house rooftop. However, the above evidence and the evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, and 10 are insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was negligent in the occurrence of the instant fall accident, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for damages of this case is without merit to examine the remaining points, and it is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Chief Judge Park Jong-dae

Judges Powers Presiding Justice

Judges Kim Gin-han